You came SO CLOSE… Everything you say is correct, except that {bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} does not mean, “I come to the river. It means, “I’m in a river, and I’m following a course.” The river might not be the course. You might be midstream of a north/south river following a course from New York to Los Angeles. The river has very little to do with the course. It just happens to be where you are while you are following the course.

Anyway, I do believe you are right and I had misremembered {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS}. Thanks for pointing that out. So, depending on the prefix, the {-Daq} is optional. I was wrong about that. I personally think that {bIQtIq vIghoS} is stylistically preferable to {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS}, since it is less ambiguous, given that there could be some implied course that doesn’t involve the river if you include {-Daq}, but that’s just a personal opinion carrying no more weight than anyone else’s opinion.

charghwI’ ‘utlh



On Feb 12, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:



Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 12, 2019, at 09:37, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

In the interview, Okrand said that adding the {-Daq} WOULD change the meaning. His example was being in a boat on a river. {-Daq} applies to the boat. The object of {ghoS} is the river.


Okrand drew a distinction between the object of {ghoS} and the location of the {ghoS}-ing. {-Daq} doesn’t change the meaning, the presence of an object to {ghoS} does — same as {jaH}.

Per HQ 7.4: {bIQtIq vIghoS} and {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS} are the same — the {-Daq} is optional. However {bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} has a different meaning and the {-Daq} isn’t optional.

IIRC, {bIQtIq(-Daq) vIghoS} would be something like “I follow the river”, whereas {bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} is “I come to the river”. I’m still fuzzy on the interpretation of the distinction, but I do remember there being a distinction.
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org